I don't know how second hand book stores work, they may in fact pay royalty-type payments. But the author did get compensated for that copy of the book. Make another copy of it though, and he's only been compensated for one of them.
is the value of the book solely in the paper it is printed on? Or have I consumed the book by reading it? It seems you are suggesting that the value is in the strict physicality of the book.
If Improva decided to advertise on DC about his book, and I post, "Hey, I already read this book, and you can have it for 1/2 off" am I not hurting his income from his intellectual endeavour?
Would the argument now go to whether I have an electronic version, or a paperback? I do not really see much difference to the economic impact to Improva?
The electronic debate always talks about copying, right? Well, what about if I send the file to the buyer for 50% of Improva's asking price, but then delete my file. I only have one file, I sent it. Now I have none. I AM allowed to sell physical books to used book stores. Should I not be allowed to sell my electronic property?
If you are saying that it is not just the paper it is written on, but rather the worth of the book is in the knowledge/entertainment/content as well------
then isn't the second hand market for books taking sales away from Improva? If everywhere he posts ads for his electronic book, what if I post an ad for 1/2 off, and I send a 'real' book. I bought my real books from folks who had electronic copies legally sent from Improva. When they sold me their electronic books, they deleted their files. I have the only copy they purchased. I make my money from printing up my copy, deleting the file, and the second hand sales I generate from these 'real' books.. Is each person who buys my 'real' book allowed to go to second hand bookstores to sell their copy, so that the stores can now legally sell, buy back, sell, buy back forever.
If you stand there reading the whole [magazine] article, I think [it is theft]. It's not a major crime, but there's a reason newsstand vendors would tell you to buy it or put it down.
so would the thief be the 'reader' of the article only? What if the vendor allowed you to read the magazine entirely? I mean, the business model for magazines is that the unsold ones do not get paid for (AFAIK) So, is Barnes and Noble obligated to the magazine suppliers to be somewhat vigilant and enforce the " buy it or put it down" business model?